THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT K JAYALAKSHMI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/552/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01046875201317 August 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the tax effect was found to be more than ₹1 Crore.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect in the appeal was less than ₹1 Crore, making it potentially not maintainable as per a circular.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of the appeal before the High Court due to low tax effect as per departmental circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.552 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PARK VIEW BUILDING

NO.284/1, 4TH MAIN

PJ EXTENSION

DAVANAGERE – 577 002

2.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-1, NO.70, 100 FEET ROAD GOPALAGOWDA EXTENSION SHIMOGA – 577 201 ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. M. DILIP, A/W Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.)

AND:

SMT.K.JAYALAKSHMI PROPRX. SRI KRISHNA TRANSPORT & SNEHA ENTERPRISES SAVARKAR NAGAR, BH ROAD SHIMOGA

… RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.PRATIBHA R., ADV. FOR MR.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.06.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.1035/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN

ITA NO.1035/BANG/2012 DATED 13.06.2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,SHIMOGA.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel along with Mr.M.Dilip, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.Prathiba R., learned counsel for Mr.S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the assessee.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than `1 Crore and therefore, the appeal may not be maintainable in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.

3.

In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the tax effect is more than `1 Crore.

4.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants to revive this appeal in case the tax effect is more than `1 Crore.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →